personally, i think there are different types of chess problems with different goals.

first, there is the form where it's always a mate in x by white, and it's not a particularly realistic position, and there's a key, and all these other special traits that define the most idealistic problem.

the second type is a more realistic problem, often taken from an actual game, where typically you practice skills that will improve your chess game.

i think both types of problems are valuable, but in terms of quality vs quantity, the first type emphasizes quality more. for the second, drilling and repetition is probably the most useful approach, and thus quantity is important.

Well, about quantity vs quality, that's a bit of a matter of taste, or rather, a matter of mood. Sometimes, I feel like solving (many) easy and simple puzzles to train my concentration and "mental reflexes". Other times, I enjoy the beauty of masterfully composed puzzles that make me think, "Now, that one was awesome!". So, in short, I think there is room for both quantity and quality. The ability to rate the "coolness" (shouldn't it be "beauty"? ) of a puzzle and the option to search puzzles based on this criterion, allows everyone to use the site depending on their individual preference (or mood).

With that option in mind, I think a chess problems database with 50,000 puzzles of varying quality (including the beautiful compositions) is better than one with 500 (only beautiful ones), simply because it appeals to a larger audience without alienating any group of people.

"Quite true. However, what interests researchers (like me), is whether there is a fundamental difference between the properties of chess problems and what can arise in a real game. Can a person or computer for example, tell the difference between a position from a chess problem and one from a real game? In this situation, citations are irrelevant. I'm currently doing research in a similar area. Try my survey, you'll see what I mean. "

Whether or not a person cvan tell a composed problem from a game situation

Wouldn't that also depend upon the quality of the players involved. The only difference I can see is a composed problem has no extraneous pieces, everyone has a function within the problem. In a game situation this can happen in late endgame stages too. So now I have convinced myself that I am wrong.

Beyond practical realistic problems for learning, and composed deeply complex problems for aesthetics, I like to create problems that are bizarre, and completely unrealistic.. almost any problem will increase your tactical understanding, and many of the great problems on this site are far more complex and beautiful than I am capable of creating.. so I like creating those problems that make you say "I did not think this tactical idea was possible given the pieces and rules of the game" Like the first time you discover the smothered mate, more than beauty, more than learning, it sparks your imagination and changes the way you think about the game._________________“It is not enough to be a good player... you must also play well”
(Siegbert Tarrasch)

I'm new here, but my simple mind tells me a chess problem is not what happens on the board. It's all about what happens in your mind. I'm constantly stuck figuring out the next move, and the next move after that. Unless people here are geniuses (I can tell many are by the complexity of the puzzles) chess problems involve long periods of thinking where you try to find out the faintest idea of where to proceed next. I suppose we do it because we enjoy pushing our mental capacities to the limit, or improving our overall chess ability.

Personally I don't look at a chess board for beauty... if I want that, there's the Museum of Modern Art (yeah, right) or the girl I have a crush on (superficial beauty).